THE PEOPLE'S VOICE: PUTTING THE JERSEY MSM TO SHAME WITH THE BALD TRUTH...

The interview I reproduce here featuring Shona and myself is from the exciting and truly excellent new, international on-line TV station The People's Voice - TPV as it is rapidly becoming known. Truly a breath of fresh air; here we have a TV station which is doing what the Jersey Establishment Party and its mainstream media mouthpieces truly hate so much - letting the public know the truth - and letting those who know spill the beans!

No Jersey Evening Post-style bullying, lies, fabrications and twisting of truth for The People's Voice. No BBC Jersey-style re-tweeting of hate sites or cutting off politician's microphones because they don't want the lies their chums have spun being revealed. No ITV Jersey-style shutting up of a rare honest journalist because the bosses don't want the facts to ruin their false angle.

Hell - for The People's Voice NO covering up for a year and half that Jurat John Le Breton - the senior Jurat who sat on our case and many others over 14 years - has a history of refusing to look at evidence against a sickening paedophile, helped protect the abuser's reputation and even lobbied on his behalf prior to being made a 'respected member' of the Jersey judiciary - as all of the three Jersey media outlets named above have done.

The People's Voice tell the truth and they tell it straight. All involved deserve great credit and I thank them for giving Shona and myself the opportunity to tell the truth the Jersey mainstream 'media' don't want you to know. Give this new venture every support that you can - it really is that important in helping to get justice for the victims of abuse and injustice. Not just here in Jersey but everywhere.

Keep the Faith

HOW THE JERSEY ESTABLISHMENT SILENCES THOSE WHO BLOW THE WHISTLE ON CHILD ABUSE AND INJUSTICE. AN EXCELLENT PIECE FROM BIG ISSUE IN THE NORTH'S MARK METCALF

The article I adapt below is the copyright of and kindly made available by the excellent UK magazine 'Big Issue in The North' and Mark Metcalf. I will attach a direct link to the magazine as soon as have it - assuming I still have IT access after our latest court battle at 10am Tuesday morning 26th November!

 

Meanwhile, thanks once again to Mark and his editor Kevin for regularly keeping an eye on the on-going struggle to drag Jersey democracy and its 'judicial' system into the 21st Century.With further UK coverage on the Jersey 'justice' system and our own battle coming up shortly Keep the Faith that one day the Bald Truth about the cover-ups will shine through!

 

Deputy Trevor Pitman 

 

‘Gagging’ claims as Jersey court case gets under way

 

An MP fears the victims of child abuse on Jersey will be “gagged” if the establishment on the island is successful in bankrupting and disqualifying from office two local members of parliament.  

Shona Pitman and her husband Trevor have represented the St Helier parish since 2005 and 2008 respectively. Both have expressed their concerns about child abuse on many occasions. Jersey’s child abuse scandal first surfaced in 2007, following which 192 victims and 151 abusers were identified during a police investigation. Seven people were successfully prosecuted.

 

An inquiry into child abuse on the island was due to have started this autumn but had to be delayed due to the overseeing judge suffering a heart attack. Visits by Jimmy Savile to a children’s home on Jersey will form part of the inquiry. The Pitmans believe the island’s Law Office has not pursued evidence against abusers. They have attempted, with backing from other parliamentary members and campaigners against child abuse, to get justice minister Lord McNally to “ensure good governance”.

Damages  

This drew a muted response from the Lib Dem peer who replied: “Jersey has its own justice system so we can’t really interfere.” The Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, who is head of the Privy Council – which acts as a court of appeal for Jersey – has also refused to get involved.

 

Last year, the couple sought damages for defamation against the Jersey Evening Post (JEP) and the Broadlands estate agency, which placed a cartoon advert in the paper in 2008. The Pitmans alleged this was intended to portray them as money-grabbers who had entered politics for personal gain.

 

John Lyndon Le Breton, the senior jurat in the case, was a friend of the newspaper’s (owning company) director and vice-principal of an exclusive fee-paying secondary school where, for indecently assaulting teenagers, paedophile Andrew Jervis-Dykes was given a four-year sentence in 1999. Colleagues of the guilty man refused to co-operate with the police and Le Breton wrote in support of him.

 

Le Breton subsequently sat on other child abuse cases but has since retired. The Pitmans lost their case after the defendants successfully argued the cartoon referred to the fact that the plaintiffs would be able to obtain a mortgage worth four times their joint salaries.  

Defamation  

The Jersey parliamentarians were left owing around a quarter of a million pounds in costs to their lawyers and the two defendants. This week the Pitmans will appear before the Jersey Appeal Court in an attempt to overturn an earlier decision that they have exhausted the time period in which they can appeal against the defamation decision.

 

They are representing themselves and need to win or face being declared bankrupt. Unlike in Britain, this will mean they are disqualified from elected office. Their home and jobs would be lost. The Pitmans argue: “The establishment and JEP want us to be forced out of politics.”  

Earlier this month, the Pitmans unsuccessfully sought an injunction to prevent the JEP publishing a story about threatening letters that had been sent to the lawyers for the JEP and Broadlands, as well as a prominent individual in the original defamation case and the Jersey politician Sean Power, who has previously criticised the Pitmans in the JEP.

 

The Pitmans accused the JEP of “yet another smear” and argued the letters had been sent to undermine them in the lead-up to their appeal. The newspaper; deputy editor, Andy Sibcy, has refused to comment on the Pitmans’ accusations or their claim that the letters had nothing to do with them. The incident has led to no police arrests.  

Abuse allegations  

Birmingham Yardley MP John Hemming has taken a keen interest in events on Jersey and it was his intervention that helped remove the 500-day ban on American journalist Leah McGrath Goodman from visiting the island and investigating child abuse allegations.

 

Hemming has recently supported Stuart Syvret, Jersey’s former health minister, who was jailed for contempt of court after he refused to remove online allegations about four islanders. The Data Protection Commissioner brought the case against Syvret. None of the four has attempted to sue the former politician for defamation. Hemming has named the four individuals in an early day motion in Parliament and called Syvret’s jailing “an affront to freedom of speech”.  

This is the second time Syvret has gone to jail. In 2010 he published a confidential report into suspicious deaths at Jersey’s General Hospital. In both case cases, Syvret has argued there has been a “cover-up”.

Hemming has now expressed his “fears that the establishment in Jersey are using legal proceedings to disqualify the Pitmans from their role in the island’s parliament”. He added: “This has the effect of gagging victims of abuse as fewer people can speak out on their behalf. I very much hope they are successful in their appeal.”

                                                                                                                                                                         MARK METCALF

 

 

 

 

THE HYPOCRISY OF THE JEP - ATTEMPT TO GAG US ON REVEALING THE FAILINGS OF PAEDOPHILE PROTECTING JURAT AT THE CENTRE OF OUR APPEAL!

They say that a week is a long time in politics. Yet what a difference a week appears to make to the selective memories of those behind Jersey's Establishment mouthpiece the Jersey Evening Post! After all, it was only a few short days ago that we had had to seek a costly temporary injunction due to the newspaper's plans to again smear us by falsely linking Shona and myself with the now infamous bogus 'threatening letter' scam.

 

Of course, even though new editor-designate Andy Sibcy had to back down on this quite heinous lie as a consequence of the judges' words the Main Stream Media still ran a story that gave a wholly misleading and deliberately negative spin on the truth to the Jersey public.

 

Indeed, not only were we falsely accused by the JEP of trying to stifle 'free speech' because we had stood up to these threats of yet another smear; but being fully aware of the truth due to the presence of their journalist Leah Ferguson at the injunction hearing, Channel Television (ITV) still told their viewers that the bogus letter 'threat' was linked to us!  Incidentally, the Director, Karen Rankine is, of course, very good friends of a number of Establishment Ministers, though we are sure this has nothing whatsoever to do with her company refusing to tell their viewers the truth.

 

OK so such behaviour by the Island's MSM is no surprise to anyone who follows local politics closely. Indeed, it is a prime reason why more and more local people are abandoning them for Citizens' Media blogs who tell people the truths the Establishment want covered up.

 

Nevertheless, given that all of this revolves around a court case which the Establishment hope to manipulate to force us out of politics because we refuse to be silenced on matters such as child abuse and judicial corruption; if the MSM really wish to protest their impartiality and fairness then I wonder how they will now report this? 

 

The JEP want to prevent you the public from knowing the truth about a Jurat happy to look the other way on evidence of the most serious nature!

 

Yes indeed, the Jersey Evening Post being a veritable bastion of truth seekers (or so you would imagine after last week's sermonising) have just attempted via their lawyers - in a submission to the Appeal Court judges actually kept secret from us in clear contempt for legal protocol - to prevent the damning evidence against Jurat John Le Breton contained within the Sharp Report from being made available to the Appeal Court in our application to be heard in the week of November 25th.

 

Evidence that would then become available to you and thus allow the public to finally know what the appeal is truly about. Evidence that shows beyond any shadow of a doubt that ANY court in which John Le Breton sat could never be regarded as safe let alone Article 6 European Convention on Human Rights compliant. Why?

 

Because this independent and long-suppressed report reveals a man who was allowed to be put forward - and consequently sit - as a Jurat for 14 years even though it was known by the those at the apex of the Jersey judiciary that he could not be relied upon to fulfil the one sacred duty at the very core of a Jurat's role:

 

TO FULLY CONSIDER ALL OF THE EVIDENCE BEFORE REACHING A DECISION ON FACT!

 

Indeed, regardless of all the other overwhelming evidence in support of our contention that the findings of Jurat John Le Breton and his inexperienced colleague Sylvia Milner were without merit, the evidence laid out about Le Breton's failings within the Sharp Report render the whole court process untenable in itself. Yet guess what? Those pillars of justice and transparency at the Jersey Evening Post have secretly attempted to argue through their lawyers that Le Breton's openness to 'looking the other way' on evidence against certain parties - no matter how serious - are...'irrelevant'!

 

No - you didn't read that wrong. 'IRRELEVANT'!

 

So (and I make no apologies for repeating any of this again) let's just have a quick re-cap on just what the Sharp Report reveals about the cover-up of the sickening child abuse of Andrew Jervis-Dykes at Victoria College; and what his friend and colleague, John Le Breton did and didn't do in response. Indeed, a re-cap on what the Jersey Evening Post and its lawyers do not want the court to be able to consider nor you to even know should it damage their hopes of benefiting from the original court's failings....

 

Over a period of many years Jervis-Dykes manipulated off-island boat trips where Jervis-Dykes would ensure he was the only adult member of staff. The College knew about this but did nothing. The consequence? Jervis-Dykes was free to ply young boys with large amounts of alcohol in order that he could then wait until darkness and sexually abuse them. His speciality was both masturbating and performing forced oral sex on children. He even liked to video this abuse!

 

What did John Le Breton do, when all of this sickening abuse over many years finally began to hit the buffers after years of the College deliberately keeping a lid on the events?

 

As far back as in 1992 Sharp reveals, along with the College Headmaster, he is seen to have been quite willing to flout all child protection guidelines in not contacting the Police and Education/Children's Service authorities following complaints from two pupils of abuse. Instead, participating in what can only be described as a humiliating and wholly inappropriate ad-hoc 'internal inquiry'. And this was not the only failing by a long way. 

 

 

Yet now, faced with the abuse finally about to become public, even when asked by the Headmaster to examine video evidence against his friend and colleague, John Le Breton instead refused to look at the evidence. Yes - he REFUSED! Even worse perhaps he incredibly then even went on to argue in the paedophile's defence. His argument in support of the paedophile included truly incredible contentions that:

 

• 'he had served the College in an outstandingly competent and conscientious way'
 
• 'that there may be no case to answer'
 
• that if Jervis-Dykes had to resign he should be allowed to do so  'with some dignity'
 
• that without a Police prosecution any resignation could be seen as a consequence of 'an unsubstantiated allegation.'
 
• that even if Jervis-Dykes had to resign he should be allowed to continue teaching pupils as Head of Maths as this 'would not place anyone at risk'
 

Yet the JEP and their lawyers want all of this to be seen as 'irrelevant' and kept out of both the court's considerations and public knowledge

 

All whilst they continue to seek to force us out of politics and financially ruin us. For let readers be in no doubt of the duplicity here. Whilst spouting nonsense about such failures within the judicial process being 'irrelevant', the JEP through their lawyers Collas Crill have already sought a Viscounts order to seize our possessions. We will also of course be forced from our home - and perhaps most central to the motivation behind all of this - consequently forced out of being able to represent our constituents by losing our seats under the States of Jersey (2005) law.  All of this in the event of losing our Appeal as a consequence of this travesty.

 

Oh yes, the hypocrisy of the Jersey Evening Post in regard to attempting to both stifle 'free speech' and keeping crucial evidence from both court and the Island's people appear to know neither shame nor limit. Remember analysing evidence is at the very heart of what a Jurat is entrusted by the court to do. It cannot be said to be 'irrelevant' under any circumstance.

 

It is what the public - and most certainly those directly involved in any court process - MUST be able to entrust a Jurat to do. Yet for Jurat John Le Breton as we can see - and it really does not matter at all whether through misguided loyalties; incompetence or simple lack of integrity - this fundamental commitment to evidence clearly is not there.

 

I thus put it to readers of the Bald Truth Jersey bluntly. When one considers this claim of 'irrelevance' from the Island's only newspaper; and indeed, the possibility that a court would let the findings of such a deeply unreliable individual stand, does anyone really wonder why decade upon decade of institutional child abuse has been allowed to go on unchecked?

 

For perhaps a very good 'snapshot judgement' upon whether anything within the now infamous so-called 'Jersey Way' that allowed all of the child abuse to happen down the years has changed, will simply be to see how many of our MSM (Mainstream Media) now report this attempt at stifling the truth and evidence I reveal and do so fairly. I for one must say I will not be holding my breath.

 

Keep the Faith

 

 

A 'LETTER', A LIE & A RAT...OR A VERY CONVENIENT SCAM TO DISTRACT FROM JURAT WHO LOOKED THE OTHER WAY ON EVIDENCE AGAINST A CHILD ABUSER

A quick post tonight but one of grave importance, particularly if you are one of the dwindling number who puts any faith In what you will be told by the Jersey MSM tomorrow - such as the infamous Jersey Evening Pravda. Indeed, with quite remarkable coincidence the story I outline below all raised its head just days after we had lodged our court papers in regard to our November 25th application to appeal against the now infamous ruling which went against us in the '4 x the salary, darling!' defamation case.

 

Court papers, of course, that demonstrate beyond the remotest shadow of a doubt how the absolute right guaranteed under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights i.e. for all people - including even Bolshie 'anti-Establishment' politicians who ask difficult questions - to have a fair trial had been completely disregarded by those at the apex of Jersey's 'justice' system.

 

What happened in this latest unfolding of skulduggery was basically this. 

 

Whilst looking after my mum at the end of last week, I was interrupted by a phone call from one Andy Sibcy - heir apparent to the role of Editor of the JEP. Within this call Sibcy attempted to force me into commenting on what he claimed was a 'letter' threatening a number of individuals with, he said, 'having their homes burnt down' should we lose our home as a result of the above said court case decision we are appealing against.

 

Obviously I informed Sibcy that I knew nothing about this whatsoever;  and also pointed out that it was a bit difficult to comment upon something which I had obviously not seen and consequently could not know the full content of. I further asked Sibcy to tell me exactly what the 'letter' (no 'letter' actually exists but more on that later) said; further still, who were these 'several' individuals who had allegedly received it. Sibcy blankly refused on both counts.

 

Alarm bells to yet more possible dirty tricks were already beginning to ring very loudly.

 

After all, where else would the verdict of just two Jurats - one who had not only been proven to have a history of happily disregarding evidence against a predatory paedophile; but had also been caught out having taken a director of the JEP's owning company to dinner at his own home be allowed to stand once these breaches of the ECHR had been highlighted for the authorities as they had done here in Jersey? The answer of course is nowhere.

 

So how credible really was it now that anyone allegedly receiving a serious threat relating to our case (allegedly) would run to the good old JEP or any media instead of just to the Police? It wasn't I concluded. Not unless there was an ulterior motive here and a very serious one at that.

 

Yet Andy Sibcy was telling me that this 'letter' I wasn't allowed to know the full content of; nor to know how credible the individuals were who had allegedly received it, was 'clearly' emanating from 'our supporters' and by extension Shona and I ourselves. Of course, as with so much of the misrepresented rubbish and  even smears the Jersey Evening Pravda churn out against those who don't toe the Establishment Party line, Sibcy's justification for such a claim was non existent. 

 

Sibcy, it seems, had just decided in time honoured Pravda fashion that this was the case. A little matter which made the fact that his 'newspaper' was apparently planning to run a cover story inferring this the very next day even more concerning. Obviously should any such incident genuinely have arisen from any 'supporter' known to Shona or I we would condemn such an action.

 

Not only would such behaviour be wholly wrong - we simply do not need any such actions: our case is rock solid and try as the Establishment might (and no doubt will) ultimately, whether here or via the Privy Council or Strasbourg, Jersey's  kangaroo 'justice' system will be brought to book for not insuring the ECHR Article 6 court process which was our right. No, the whole thing smelt of a set up.

 

Our biggest concern - and the concern that ultimately informed our decision to seek a temporary injunction on this nonsense being published was that some of those who had allegedly received this threatening 'letter' might be from within the judiciary - a judiciary of course who in just two and a half weeks we would be appealing to for justice!

 

Thus to cut a very long story short (for the present time) with both Pravda and even the Police - who I had contacted straightaway - completely refusing to give me any details ,we made the decision to seek the said temporary injunction to stand just until the day after our appeal hearing would be concluded. Hopefully by which time the Police investigation would also have brought to book the culprits.

 

This initial request for a temporary injunction until we could find out the truth was granted by Mr Pitchers QC, until a court hearing to ascertain more details could take place today at 4pm.

 

Of course, as we were to eventually find out - if only Mr Sibcy would have been a bit more forthcoming with his over-the-top hype to try and make me comment and accept his spin on things as to what had allegedly taken place; and as to the contents of the 'letter' we really wouldn't have bothered. Yes, whilst unpleasant to be sure it really was in truth that much of a non-story. Unless, I suppose, you are a party hoping to damage another without any justification or evidence for some reason?

 

For lo and behold, shortly before going to court I was eventually able to pin down the Police Officers who were investigating the case. It was, even with their understandable inability to tell me everything with an investigation to run, starkly illuminating in comparison with the Sibcy and Pravda version.

 

I wasn't a suspect in being behind this. Shona was not a suspect in being behind this. Indeed, contrary to the JEP claims the Police confirmed there was also absolutely no evidence or credible suggestion that the 'letter' (more on that in a minute, honest!) must have 'clearly' emanated from what Sibcy called 'our supporters' at all! It was just bull. The rat if I may use that term began to smell even more strongly!

 

And yet on going to court for the hearing we were to be in for even more shocks. The alleged 'letter' didn't as I say exist at all. All that did - and suddenly thanks to the judge the JEP had to allow Shona and I to finally see it as they could have done when Sibcy was spinning his story - was nothing more than 5 scrawled and badly written lines in what looks like marker pen. A note of just 16 words. Its content not even a shadow of the abuse Shona and I - as with many others - have complained to the Police, the Data Protection Office, and the Attorney General about on numerous occasions. And guess what else?

 

• It did not even refer to either Shona or me by name at any point!
• It did not even specifically mention our court case by name!
• Indeed, just as the Police said it did not provide even the remotest justification for Sibcy's claim that it 'clearly' came from 'our supporters'!

 

Odd then how the JEP had managed to contrive such a potentially damaging, for both our case and, indeed, our public reputation interpretation of this note? The undeniable fact was it had all of the suggestions of an attempted stitch up from someone wanting to try and discredit Shona and I and with it undermine our appeal against the failings of the Jersey courts.

 

And yet the stink arising from this stunt was about to reach heights that would even make a Jersey tax avoidance 'sniff test' official suspicious. For we finally got to know the 4 names of the apparent recipients.  

• Lawyer for the Jersey Evening Post, Advocate Danny Le Maistre
•  Lawyer for Broadlands/1st Jersey Limited, Advocate David Steenson
• The individual behind the infamous '4 x the salary, darling!'advert/cartoon Mr Roger Trower

 

And finally....

 

One Deputy Sean Power!

 

Yes, you read that correctly - Deputy Sean Power. A man who hasn't got the remotest link to our court case in any way. But a man who has only recently been afforded the front page of the Jersey Evening Post to spin lies about us relating to a planning application. Lies, of course, for which he has been asked to apologise for by the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Rob Duhamel, after Shona publicly exposed him and requested that the Minister take action. An apology, for which we still await.

 

Deputy Sean Power: a man who you might recall had to resign in shame as Minister for Housing after he was caught out having stolen personal e-mails from Deputy Judy Martin relating to her friend, the Deputy of Grouville. E-mails which then ended up on an sickening Internet hate site. A man who we can only conclude appears to have some kind of warped personal vendetta against Shona and I, of the sort you might usually associate with the likes of a deranged Internet troll perhaps?

 

And that - for now - is where I will leave it. This attempt to link either Shona or myself, or indeed any of 'our supporters' has about as much credibility as a Jurat who refuses to look at evidence against a paedophile. It stinks of set up. And it needs the Police to leave no stone unturned in bringing those behind it to court. Trouble is with our experience of 'justice' in Jersey even if the Police do so, those behind it will likely be referred to just a parish hall inquiry for their sins. Its just 'the Jersey Way'...

 

Meanwhile, the Police have been handed two names by me which really do merit the most rapid and thorough investigation possible.  To this regard I am confident that not even Andy Sibcy or his Pravda employers could sell either one to the public as being 'our supporters'  in a month of Sundays. Of course, when people are desperate they still may well try....

 

Keep the Faith. The Privy Council and if necessary Strasbourg grow ever closer and with this ultimately a Justice system where that justice will at last be guaranteed for all. Truth will always win out in the end.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JERSEY - THREE POSTCARDS FROM THE 'FLYING BANANA' REPUBLIC

A handful of observations from within the best of all places being ruined for the worst of all motives. Forget America where right-wingers would rather risk bankrupting their own country then grant the poorest basic health insurance - when it comes to getting it spectacularly wrong my home island is out there in a league of its own...

Senator Ozouf joins the battle for fair representation - or does he?

It was encouraging to spot in the Jersey Evening Pravda that none other than Senator Philip Ozouf was telling us that we really could not let the unfairness inherent within the over-representation of country over town parishes in the States continue past 2014. Indeed, as I always do whenever he is right - I wholly agree with and even applaud him. Nevertheless there are just two little problems that keep niggling at me over this.

Firstly, if Senator Ozouf really cares about the people of St. Helier at last having voting parity of representation with their country parish cousins (some of whom never even have contested elections at all - just successions) then why doesn't the Senator's proposition attempt to give St. Helier just that instead of something that again sells them short? Secondly, the good Senator has derided the need for changes over more than a decade in government. Whatever can have led to this moment of epiphany after all of these years?

Senator Ozouf really should tell us all about this at once. Otherwise some of our more cynical political watchers might just begin to suspect this change is all down to the Senator believing he wouldn't be able to hang on to his current Senatorial seat. One thing is beyond doubt this week's States debate of 'reform' is likely to be the biggest shambles for years. And that we are in this mess is all down to Senator Philip Bailhache's ego and the lily-livered politicians who allowed him to hijack the independent Electoral Commission

Economic Development to lead clampdown on cyber-bullying

As the politician who forced this on to the political agenda (well, you have to blow your own trumpet sometimes!) this story seemed to be a very welcome one indeed - for cyber-bullying can kill and that should never, ever be forgotten. Welcome that is, until you come to realise that the grim truth is: if you cyber bully someone from outside of the Jersey Establishment fold and/or from a position of power you will remain wholly immune to prosecution no matter what.  

Cyber-bullying and the twisted 21st century social phenomena of the internet 'troll' really is an issue that demands government action. Yet again the sad reality here is that the island's most vicious and cowardly cyber thug has been afforded huge wedges of taxpayers' money by our 'justice' authorities to take another person (one of many) he himself had relentlessly bullied for years to court for....bullying! And this via a secret court circus at that.

Throw in the further facts that police files against the same said cyber-thug get no further than the Attorney General's wastepaper bin; the Managing Editor no less of the local BBC refusing to even apologise for his promotion of a Twitter hate account set up to attack Deputy Shona Pitman; and now yet another staff member of that company being even accused in a national newspaper of involvement in the alleged 'bullying to death' of the late Simon Abbott  and the dire need for genuine government action is loud and clear.

Yet in the cold light of dawn what are we really likely to get? My bet is a cobbled together quasi-legal  'law' to enable the Establishment to try and close down the only independent Jersey news source that is Citizens' Media. You have been warned....

The call for 'Access to Justice' in Jersey isn't just about affordability...

In a week that has also seen my colleague, Deputy Montfort Tadier lodging a proposition calling for Chief Minister Gorst to finally publish the TOR for the Access to Justice 'Working Group' I have a question lodged for the Chief Minister asking that he accepts 'backbenchers' being included on this. Why? Well, a fact that Senator Gorst has been strangely silent on is the truth that this whole initiative actually arose out of a meeting Deputy Shona Pitman and I had with him on the abuses of justice we were (and still are)  experiencing.

You remember - just little things such as... individuals proven to be willing to disregard hard evidence against paedophiles then being allowed to sit as jurats and the like. Anyway, the point of my wishing to be involved revolves around this core: 'access' to justice - as can be seen from what I highlight above - is clearly not just about issues such as putting an end to the Closed Shop of Jersey Lawyers that cements their ability to rip the rest of us off by keeping out far cheaper UK lawyers. It is about the 'justice' the average man and woman in the street are able to access also being guaranteed to be just that: JUSTICE. Transparent. Accountable. Affordable. And Human Rights compliant.

For if Chief Minister Gorst is allowed to get away with handing over this review - both its make up and its working mandate - to the very same people whose lucrative gravy train relies upon it - just as it has done for decades - we the ordinary public will get nothing like what is needed at all. We simply must not let that happen.

Keep the Faith

Meanwhile I leave you with the following oral question to be asked of the Minister for Home Affairs:

 

“Would the Minister inform members whether the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, in response to allegations made to the Police by former Senator S. Syvret relating to corruption, advised Mr. Syvret that his concerns had been referred to a local legal firm and had been deemed groundless, and, if so, which legal firm was utilised and why?”

The answer - or perhaps even the non-answer - stands to be quite fascinating. Maybe because I know the answer already?